By creation of the Ti (Titanium) NVIDIA had for
several objects: from a response to the Radeon 8500/7500 which are
yet unreleased to definite figures of the performance of this baby.
The situation is quite annoying - the NVIDIA experts have to wait
for the definite final figures of the G2 Radeon to decide into what
niches and at what prices they should throw into the market their
products. The figures are still unclear and the shareholders and
the governing body of the company are urged on by the 6-month term.
The only way-out is new drivers which were released to fill up an
awkward pause during which ATI and NVIDIA try to let each other
pass first to the autumn market.

However, it was not rational to launch the NV25
or NV17, killers of the Radeon 8500 and 7500, until the mass sales
of the latter ones started. But a proactive blow should have been
done. The situation was solved by a release of three nonexistent
chips - GeForce 2 Ti, GeForce 3 Ti200 and GeForce 3 Ti500.

GeForce2 Ti - you have already seen this chip in the GeForce
2 Ultra (NV15A, the rated 250 MHz core frequency), but it is coupled
with a slower 200 (400) MHz DDR memory. It is meant to replace
the GeForce2 Pro (NV15) by offering a bit higher performance at
the same amount of money and taking the market position a little
lower than the Radeon 7500. It is obvious that a considerable
dependence of GeForce2 chips on a memory bandwidth will provide
a performance gain only at low resolutions and in games (tests)
with heavy geometry.

GeForce3 Ti200 is just a slow GeForce3 (NV20) with a 175 MHz
core and 200 (400) MHz memory. The cards on it will be cheaper
than the GeForce3 and meant for a direct competition with the
Radeon 7500 (while taking the position a bit higher than the latter).
What the company wanted to say is "Take DirectX 8.0 at the price
of DirectX 7.0 of the competitors".

GeForce3 Ti500 is a new top model of the GeForce 3 family based
on the new NV20 stepping and having a 240 MHz core and 250 (500)
MHz DDR memory. This set is positioned at the same niche as the
competitor's top and will directly compete with the Radeon 8500.

These releases are followed by three solid announcements.

Announcement 1 - DirectX 8.1 support

NVIDIA just made Microsoft to declare the pixel
shaders of v1.2 and v1.3 sufficient for compatibility with DirectX
8.1 (see ATI R200
review). And while the Radeon 8500 supports considerably improved
pixel shaders (a longer shader code, a lot of new instructions etc.)
the NVIDIA products have just minor alterations (several new instructions,
the number of registers and shader length are the same). Moreover,
in the current drivers (21.85) the pixel shaders were still of v1.1.

I suspect that the v1.2 and v1.3 will be available
only in the NV25 and NV17. The NV25 is said to support the proprietary
shaders of the Radeon 8500 (1.4), but I think it is impossible.
This support would require a considerable redesigning of the whole
pipeline and a system of texture values sampling, for what NVIDIA
has no time.

Announcement 2 - 3D texture support

The 3D texture support is realized now only in
the OpenGL; in the current Direct3D it is still locked, although
there are some traces of it in the D3DCAPS. It lacked for a long
time in the Direct3D, although it was to be done yet for the NV20.
It seems that there is some error in the chip, and while it could
be eliminated on the driver level in the OpenGL, which passes all
data by creating lists of requests to the accelerator according
to the API calls, it was impossible in the Direct3D, where the most
of data structures are implemented directly by the chip. ATI, however,
has 3D texture support both in the Direct3D and in the OpenGL drivers
since the Radeon 1.

But NVIDIA provides much better support for 3D
textures than it is done in the Radeon1. It supports really compressed
(in three dimensions, with a compression factor equal to 1:4 and
1:8) texture formats, 3D texture MIP mapping and their procedural
generation and usage of them as 3D and 4D parametrized tables for
calculation of some effects. Compression must be obligatory provided
since one 256X256X256 texture takes 64 MBytes if uncompressed. When
compressed, it takes 8 MBytes. But we still only dream of the scenes
where a lot of objects have their own 3D textures; the local memory
of accelerators allows us to use only several 3D textures to create
impressing effects such as 3D mist or complex illumination.

MIP mapping also allows decreasing a data volume
(making it smaller as the distance from an object grows) and to
improve the visual quality of objects with 3D textures.

The procedural textures allow generating data on
the fly according to a certain formula, which is, however, calculated
by a CPU. This approach is possible for different special effects
with quickly changing 3D textures, but it is not justified for economizing
the memory in case of a great heap of various objects with 3D textures
- the performance will be too low.

Today there is only one game application which
uses 3D textures - DroneZ:

It is quite a primitive game in plot but it is
rich in special effects and uses all latest innovations available
in the OpenGL (including 3D textures):

But there are also Imposters - flat stripes which
are usually drawn quite fast (because they have a constant Z and
don't require a per-pixel interpolation of parameters) with rectangular
2D textures in use. Such stripes are used to optimize displaying
of a lot of similar small objects, for example, a system of particles.

Usage of 3D textures here opens new prospects -
we can animate these objects, for example, in respect of the position
of an imaginary source of light. If we use a set of preliminary
calculated images, we can create an illusion of a great number of
really 3D objects displayed at a great speed since in reality they
are only 2D sprites.

Well, now 3D textures remain still a resource-demanding
tool useful only for creation of special effects. Their realization
would really look great in the GeForce3 family if a normal support
were not absent in the Direct3D.

Announcement 3 - Windows XP support

It supports both a complete set of 2D features
necessary for normal acceleration of the Windows XP, and a new 2D
API Microsoft GDI+ on a lower level. It provides fast image building
and a more effective usage of hardware acceleration. The GDI+ is
an attempt to overcome the architectural drawbacks of the API. Besides,
it contains several new possibilities such as gradient shading.

Cards

I will introduce only the GeForce3 Ti500 since
only this one has an increased frequency relative to the GeForce3.
Operation of the GeForce3 Ti200 was emulated also on it with the
frequencies decreased to 175/200 (400) MHz. Operation of the GeForce2
Ti was estimated on the Leadtek WinFast GeForce2 Ultra video card
with the memory frequency decreased to 200 (400) MHz.

The reference NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti500 card has AGP
x2/x4 interface, 64 MB DDR SDRAM located in 8 chips on the
right side of the PCB.

The memory works at 250 (500) MHz. The memory chips
are covered with traditional heatsinks. The frequency of the memory
is lower than the rated one according, obviously, to the recommendations
of makers of such a fast memory. But I hope it will be possible
to overclock it up to the rated speed according to the access time.

The GPU works at 240 MHz. It is not a considerable
increase, but taking into account that GeForce3 cards are well balanced,
the performance gain should be quite large. If you look through
our related reviews and 3Digest
you will see that the GeForce3 was already overclocked up to 255/280
(560) MHz. This is higher than the Ti500 is able to give. There
are also a lot of GeForce3 cards which can operate at over 240/250
(500) MHz.

The GeForce3 Ti500 looks very close to the reference
card, but there are some differences:

The most considerable changes are made near the
VGA connector:

On the left you can see the GeForce3 Ti500 card
and on the right is the GeForce3 one. At the expense of a different
core feeding unit a logic set which controls 2D quality (filters
etc.) was moved from the rear side of the PCB to the front one.

Overclocking

Being cooled enough, the NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti500
raised its frequency up to 260/290 (580) MHz. While the memory overclocking
is impressing (although it is only 10 MHz over the rated frequency),
the GPU speed, which is higher by 20 MHz, is moderate.

Note:

in course of overclocking you must provide additional cooling,
in particular, for the card (first of all, for its memory);

overclocking depends on the definite sample, and you shouldn't
generalize the results of one card to all video cards of this
mark or series. The overclocking results are not the obligatory
characteristics of a video card.

Test results

2D quality is traditionally high. At 1600X1200,
85 Hz you can play comfortably with a high-quality monitor which
supports such modes. I noticed no changes despite the fact that
the PCB was redesigned.

For estimation of 3D quality we used several tests:

id Software Quake3 v.1.17 - a game test which demonstrates
operation of a card in OpenGL with a standard demo benchmark demo002;

MadOnion 3DMark2001 Pro - a synthetic test which shows how
a certain card works in DirectX 8.0.

Quake3 Arena

demo002, standard modes

The tests were carried out in two modes: Fast
(16-bit color) and High Quality (32-bit color).

Operation of the GeForce2 Ti was emulated with
the help of the Leadtek WinFast GeForce2 Ultra card by setting a
250/200 (400) MHz frequency. Operation of the GeForce3 Ti200 was
emulated with the NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti500 card by setting a 175/200
(400) MHz frequency.

As the GeForce2 Ti and GeForce3 Ti cards refer
to different market niches I have divided the diagrams into two
units for the performance analyses.

NVIDIA GeForce2 Ti

NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200/500

The Ti200 takes an intermediate position between
the GeForce2 Ultra and GeForce3 (there is almost no difference between
this card and the GeForce2 Ultra in 16-bit color).

demo002, highest quality and load modes

The detailing levels of geometry and textures
were maximum, and the objects were extremely complicated because
of curved lines (r_subdivisions "1" r_lodCurveError "30000").

NVIDIA GeForce2 Ti

The GeForce2 Ti beats its predecessor in 16-bit
color at the expense of a higher core speed, but in 32-bit color
it was put into its place by the memory bandwidth.

NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200/500

Due to a considerable drop in the core speed the
Ti200 lags behind the GeForce2 Ultra in 16-bit color. But in 32-bit
one the situation is different.

demo002, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering
tests

The GeForce3, as you know, possesses two important
functions in 3D: anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. The most
optimal AA mode for the GeForce3 is Quincunx, and the best graphics
is obtained with the Level 8 of anisotropy which uses up to 32 texture
samples. The performance drop is quite big at that. Even 1024X768
is not playable with the Quincunx AA and Level 8 anisotropy enabled
simultaneously. Let's see how the Ti500 can boost the performance:

The performance drop is considerable, and even
an overclocking of the Ti500 hardly saves the situation in high
resolutions. But there are many games which do not require hundreds
of FPS, and in 1024X768 in 32-bit color one can play excellently
with the highest AA and anisotropy. In our 3Digest
you can look at the anisotropy quality of the GeForce3.

3DMark2001

As the test consists of several subtests and,
therefore, there are a lot of diagrams, I didn't divide GeForce2
Ti and GeForce3 Ti200/500 into different diagrams.

3D Marks

The general results of the 3DMark2001 show that
the GeForce2 Ti takes an intermediate position between the GeForce2
Pro and GeForce2 Ultra. The Radeon 7500, however, outscores them.

In the GeForce3 family the performance gradually
increases from the GeForce3 Ti200 to the Ti500.

Game1, Low details

The Game1 is a scene from car races where you can
practice shooting. There are a lot of effects and detailed objects.
In the 16-bit color there is a good stair, while in the 32-bit one
the GeForce2 Ti loses to the ATI RADEON 7500.

Game1, High details

This is rather a processor test because of a too
complex scenes. In 16-bit color all go on a par inside their niches,
and in 32-bit color the RADEON 7500 again outshines the GeForce2
Ti.

Game2, Low details

Here the RADEON 7500 comes very close to the GeForce3
Ti200 in 32-bit color. But this scene has a high overdraw factor,
and traditional accelerators without optimization of operation with
a Z-buffer implement a lot of unnecessary operations (they draw
many invisible surfaces). The GeForce3 is able to implement such
optimizations, that is why the performance is much higher.

Game2, High details

The situation is similar.

Game3, Low details

This scene shows the expected correspondence of
the performance levels in the GeForce2 clan in 16-bit color
and an advantage of the ATI RADEON 7500 in 32-bit one.

Game3, High details

The competition in the GeForce2 Pro niche shows
that the RADEON 7500 excels in 32-bit color.

Game4

Despite its lower frequencies the GeForce3 Ti200
copes excellently with this scene thanks to the new Detonator XP
driver.

Conclusion

We have just studied a new Titanium series from
NVIDIA which includes 3 cards: GeForce2 Ti, GeForce3 Ti200 and GeForce3
Ti500.

The new 0.15 micron technology allows the GeForce2
Ti to reach much more than 250 MHz. But the positioning of this
card doesn't permit the memory to work at higher than 200 (400)
MHz, that is why it is not rational for the chip to operate at over
250 MHz. NVIDIA says that the GeForce2 Ti outscores the GeForce2
Ultra and costs as much as the GeForce2 Pro. But they exaggerate
since in 32-bit color it doesn't provide the speed of the Ultra,
but it will, indeed, cost much lower than the GeForce2 Pro cards.

The GeForce3 Ti200/500 line is meant to make the
powerful accelerator with DirectX 8.0 (Ti200) possibilities affordable
and to beat the ATI RADEON 8500 (Ti500). The time will show whether
the GeForce3 Ti500 is able to outdo the ATI RADEON 8500 whose capabilities
are not known yet.

I think the Ti200 will be quite popular, while
the Ti500 will hardly be such at the beginning. The current GeForce3
will be replaced with the Ti line, that is why there will be no
choice. But it is possible that NVIDIA will develop some new solution
by that time. That is why GeForce3-card owners should wait for the
NV25, and those who still lack for such a powerful accelerator should
look at the Ti200 or wait for the RADEON 8500 to clarify the price
situation. Today it is quite difficult to recommend one or another
product since their prices are not available yet.

Highs:

Replacement of the old GeForce2 Pro with the new GeForce2 Ti
will allow us to get the Ultra by overclocking the memory at quite
a small sum of money;

A relatively cheap GeForce3 Ti200 will allow those who can
spend up to $200 for a powerful video card to get, in fact, a
normal GeForce3;

Replacement of the GeForce3 with the Ti500 will reduce the
prices for the latter, and you then will be able to buy a more
powerful accelerator;

All advantages of the GeForce3 also concern the Ti200/Ti500
line;

Lows:

None.

Just a little time ago we have received some information
concerning the retail prices which will be up to $349 for the GeForce3
Ti500, $199 (!) for the GeForce3 Ti200 and $149 for the GeForce2 Ti.
The prices look quite attractive taking into consideration the possibilities
and the performance of these cards. Let's wait for the ATI RADEON
8500 and ATI RADEON 7500 which will obviously initiate a new price
war.

Our testers will publish reviews of the new line
of production Titanium cards very soon.